Author
Topic: Homosexuality (Read 11491 times)

rather than belabor this issue in threads on other topics, lets just deal with it here

----

"[The homosexual] movement is the civil rights movement turned on its head. When Martin Luther King came to Washington and articulated his dream on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, he spoke of an America that would live up to the truths and principles upon which it was founded. ... The civil rights movement of the 1960's was about living up to and applying our principles, not re-writing or re-inventing them. There was no tradition on which this country was founded that Dr. King challenged. It was upon those very traditions that he made his challenge and claim. ... Gay politics is the child of the new political America. In a fashion quite the opposite of Dr. King -- who challenged an unjust nation to return to the principles and traditions from which it had strayed -- gay political operatives work to re-write our traditions to suit their own proclivities. They say their struggle is about equality, but it's really about the exercise of political power and claims for entitlement." --Star Parker

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

peter: mainly because there are people here in this forum who insist upon defending their lifestyle as valid. It's not a matter of being against the person - it is a matter of saying that the actions of the person are sinful. AND - if we talk about here in this thread, maybe we can keep the topi from hijacking other threads

FYI -the dems running for president ALL support gay marriage.

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

I've not noticed any defense of homosexual lifestyle in the time I've been here but I'll defer to your longer and more active membership.

Nevertheless I doubt that any Orthodox have defended the homosexual lifestyle.

I am fortunate that I don't need to consider voting Democrat, but over here my natural choice of party - Labout - has completely turned me off. The latest news item this week was the head of a government quango telling us all that it should be obvious to all sensible people that a father is not necessary in a child's life and that lesbian couples should not be denied IVF treatment.

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

Peter: I can't but eye GW with respect. He alone of all the candidates I believe when he speaks of our Lord. He means it.

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

peter: mainly because there are people here in this forum who insist upon defending their lifestyle as valid. It's not a matter of being against the person - it is a matter of saying that the actions of the person are sinful. AND - if we talk about here in this thread, maybe we can keep the topi from hijacking other threads

FYI -the dems running for president ALL support gay marriage.

"there are people here on this forum who upon defending their lifestyle..." Max is saying two things here. First that there are people on this forum who are homosexual. That's a serious charge. One I hope he can back up. I an unaware of any openly gay participants on this forum. So either Max is privy to information that I don't have, meaning that these gay participants have told him (why would they be so stupid?) that they are gay or Max infers that they are gay for some reason.

The second thing Max is saying is that these gay participants defend their lifestyle here. I assume that he can point to actual posts?

I didn't take Max's post that way at all. I believe he was referring to some posters defending homosexuals' "lifestyle", not charging those posters with being homosexuals themselves. To me, when he said "their" he was referring to the homosexuals and not the posters themselves. As far as his accusation, I've read some of the posts in the earlier thread, and there are some that suggest that homosexuality is something people are "born with" (based on the erroneous logic that: "who in their right mind would 'choose' this?") and because of this we should cut them some slack. (Max, was that what you were referring to?)

IF I wanted to "out" someone I would. However, it's not my place or a charitable thing to do - what more it is not something I would ever do. You can make what assumptions you want about what I have posted Ms. Jennifer, but I have not accused anyone of being gay. DO you have something you would like to tell us?

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

I took issue with the way your post was worded too and particularly your uncharitable response to Jennifer (at least you made the effort to use her name properly).

You seem to have a hard time apologising to people when your posts offend. If we scandalise our brethren should we defend what we have done out of pride or should we humbly seek to heal the damage we have caused?

I took issue with the way your post was worded too and particularly your uncharitable response to Jennifer (at least you made the effort to use her name properly).

You seem to have a hard time apologising to people when your posts offend. If we scandalise our brethren should we defend what we have done out of pride or should we humbly seek to heal the damage we have caused?

I took issue with the way your post was worded too and particularly your uncharitable response to Jennifer (at least you made the effort to use her name properly).

You seem to have a hard time apologising to people when your posts offend. If we scandalise our brethren should we defend what we have done out of pride or should we humbly seek to heal the damage we have caused?

John.

John, there was nothing in the post original post in question even mentioning, let alone addressed to, Ms. Jennifer so I am confused as to know I could have been uncharitable to her. If instead you are referring to the reply I made to her constantly reading into my posts information neither implied or volunteered, I am sorry if you or any of the other members of the board have been offended by it. I am hurt, however, by the accusation you have made against my character. I have no problem apologizing when I have truly given offence however unintentional that offence may have been so long as the fault is mine. Even still, I’m not going to walk around apologizing for breathing as some would have me do.

I merely asked Ms. Jennifer a question, what reason is there to be scandalized by a question?

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

John, there was nothing in the post original post in question even mentioning, let alone addressed to, Ms. Jennifer so I am confused as to know I could have been uncharitable to her. If instead you are referring to the reply I made to her constantly reading into my posts information neither implied or volunteered, I am sorry if you or any of the other members of the board have been offended by it. I am hurt, however, by the accusation you have made against my character. I have no problem apologizing when I have truly given offence however unintentional that offence may have been so long as the fault is mine. Even still, I’m not going to walk around apologizing for breathing as some would have me do.

I merely asked Ms. Jennifer a question, what reason is there to be scandalized by a question?

Here I go again giving Max writing tips. You need to be more precise with your use of pronouns. The sloppy use of pronouns is a very common grammatical mistake. Generally speaking, a pronoun stands for a noun whose identify was made clear in earlier text. Let's look at your original sentence. "there are people here in this forum who insist upon defending their lifestyle as valid..." If you meant the sentence as I interpreted it, then your use of the pronoun was correct because the pronoun "their" was identified in the earlier portion of the sentence "people here in this forum." If you did not intend it to be interpreted it that way, then your pronoun use sloppy.

Sloppy uses of pronouns leads to misinterpretations. When using "they" or "their," one should always ask oneself "who is they?" Have I identified them immediately proceeding my use of "they?"

Lawyers are not noted for the clarity of their writing. They seem to prefer to conceal information in obscure sentence construction and language .

Quote

Sloppy uses of pronouns leads to misinterpretations. When using "they" or "their," one should always ask oneself "who is they?" Have I identified them immediately proceeding my use of "they?"

Tsk Tsk - should this not be

"Who are they' - they being plural ??

Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Slave: how dare you correct Ms. Jennifer!! She is a law student after all and an expert. Mind you she can't differentiate between two people, but she sure is good at talking down to people. Oh and we mustn’t ever call her or anyone she supports communists or liberals even if they are.

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

Even though I probably mostly disagree with Jenn on the Healthcare thread (haven't checked any responses to my recent post yet this morning as I write this), I definitely agree with her opinions regarding this topic and Max.

Max,

Two things:

1) However you may act in person, you come across as an uncaring bigot in this forum - at least on this topic. Think before you submit.

2) It doesn't matter if YOU don't think you did anything wrong. What matters is that many of us and especially the Global Mod does. A half-hearted apology is almost no apology. Again, you didn't spell it out well, so we have no idea what you're really thinking or what your point really is.

I have been posting for over a year now and don't recall any posts from active members of this board condoning the "gay lifestyle". On the contrary, there are numerous posts condeming it in threads relating to Robinson and the ECUSA.

And I must agree that the wording of the original post DOES appear to have an underlying meaning attached to it.

Warping the WordThe Biblical View of Homosexuality Is Under Attack (Part 2)Feature by Ed VitaglianoJanuary 8, 2004(Read Part 1 of this series, 'Sodom's Solemn Warning')

(AgapePress) - In 2003 the Episcopal Church consecrated as bishop of New Hampshire an openly homosexual man, triggering an all-out intra-denominational war between conservatives and liberals that mirrors conflicts in other Protestant churches.

The action on the part of the 2.4-million-member branch of the worldwide Anglican community highlighted the distinctly different approaches to Scripture taken by both sides of the conflict.

Conservatives argued that the Scripture is as clear on the subject of homosexuality as it can possibly be.

Advocates for the acceptance of homosexuality within the church responded by saying that things are not as simple as they appear. For example, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, head of the Episcopal Church, said, "Homosexuality, as we understand it as an orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible."

Dispensing with the LawNot mentioned in the Bible? There could hardly be a clearer passage than the plain directive of Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (See also Lev. 20:13.)

How could an activist possibly evade the condemnation inherent within such a verse?

Most claim that the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality was only meant to keep Israel separate from the surrounding nations -- and thus did not reflect God's universal disapproval of such activity.

"The point is that The Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits male same-sex acts for religious reasons, not for sexual reasons," said Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak in What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. "The concern is to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles."

In their excellent book, The Same Sex Controversy, James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell disagree with this argument, insisting that Leviticus codifies for Israel how God felt about homosexuality in a universal sense. The proof? The Lord had pronounced judgment upon the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Promised Land for committing these very same sins. Because the Canaanite nations had "done all these abominations," the inhabitants had defiled the land (Lev. 18:25, 27), and were to be expelled.

"[T]hese were nations that did not have the Law of God given to them on tablets of stone, yet God still held them responsible for their immoral behavior," White and Niell argue. "Unquestionably, God's prohibition of homosexuality wasn't only a Jewish matter -- it was something that transcended ethnic boundaries."

Moreover, Helminiak's argument proves too much. If the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to all men everywhere, what about the other sins in Leviticus -- such as adultery, bestiality, incest, and prostitution?

Clearly, White and Niell suggest, "such practices are immoral and reprehensible wherever they may occur, whatever the address or the locale."

In their pro-homosexual tome, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott also try to undercut the force of Leviticus by noting that other (non-sexual) prohibitions of the Law are no longer practiced by Christians. They state: "Consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."

But Levitical laws regarding diet, for example, are no longer observed "because God, in His own Word, has repealed them," White and Niell said. "Where in the Bible has God abolished the prohibition against homosexuality? Nowhere!"

Some activists declare that the references to homosexuality in the Mosaic Law are only prohibitions against sexual acts committed in the context of idolatry and the temple prostitution that was rampant in pagan nations.

Ex-gay Joe Dallas, founder of Genesis Counseling and the author of three books on homosexuality, discounts such arguments. "If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry," he said. "That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise."

The Only Words That Count?Being able to somehow by-pass the Levitical code is extraordinarily important for homosexual advocates, since its condemnation of homosexual activity is so clear. It is not surprising, then, to find activists arguing that, since we are no longer under Law but under grace, the only words that matter are those of the New Testament.

For example, they ask, what did Jesus say about this issue? Keith Boykin, former executive director of the National Black Lesbian and Gay Leadership Forum and author of One More River to Cross: Black and Gay in America, said "the truth is that Jesus Christ said nothing negative about homosexuality."

Did Jesus ever mention homosexuality? We can never know the answer to that question. All we do know is what statements the Bible records Jesus as saying. And it is true that, in the New Testament, Jesus does not mention homosexuality.

However, this is an argument from silence. Simply because Jesus did not condemn homosexuality does not mean He approved of it. Jesus never mentions rape or incest, either, yet that does not mean He approved of those sins.

In any case, the New Testament as a whole does address homosexuality. The apostle Paul, the author of almost half of the New Testament, explicitly mentions homosexuality in three passages:1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26-28; and 1 Timothy 1:10.

In the latter two texts, for example, the apostle condemns homosexuals (the Greek word arsenokoitai) -- along with thieves, fornicators and others -- declaring that they are "lawless and rebellious," and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Pro-homosexual activists, however, try to deflect the force of Paul's condemnation away from modern-day homosexuality, claiming that arsenokoitai refers to abusive homosexuals, pederasts (adult men who have sex with pubescent boys) or homosexual prostitutes.

"The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the Gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer," said homosexual Rev. Peter J. Gomes, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard, in his book, The Good Book: Reading the Bible With Heart and Mind. "All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness and exploitation."

To the contrary, as James B. De Young argues in Homosexuality: Contemporary claims examined in light of the Bible and other ancient literature and law, the ancient world was very aware of "loving, monogamous and faithful" homosexual relationships. He cites Plato's Symposium, for example, which speaks of homosexuals who "are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other's side for a single moment."

Surely, then, the New Testament writers -- especially a well-educated man like Paul -- would have known that homosexuality consisted of more than pederasty or male prostitution.

But did Paul intend his readers to understand arsenokoitai in this manner -- i.e., to denote the entire breadth of homosexual feelings and actions?

Absolutely, argues De Young, stating that the apostle's use of arsenokoitai "suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus." His reason? Arsenokoitai, which literally means "male [sexual] beds," is most likely an allusion by Paul to the Greek translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the latter of which is translated, "If there is a man [arsenos] who lies with [koiten] a man as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act."

Like Leviticus 18:22, Paul in these two New Testament passages does not differentiate between types of homosexuality (loving, non-loving; committed, uncommitted; caring, abusive), but puts the condemnation squarely on the same-sex act. Whatever the motivation, and however much two men or two women may claim to love each other, Paul says they are forbidden to have sexual intercourse.

This is also true about Paul's clearest statement on the subject, Romans 1:26, 27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts ...."

Amazingly, activists claim that Paul is not condemning natural homosexuals (that is, men and women who are homosexual by nature), but heterosexuals who experiment with homosexual activities out of lust.

"The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their [sexual] calling, gotten off the true path they were once on," said the late John Boswell in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

However, as White and Niell state, in Romans 1 the focus is "upon the willful twisting of God's truth, and the resultant judicial 'giving over' of men to the results of their own refusal to worship Him and acknowledge Him."

In other words, rejecting God as Creator results in the rejection of the male-female created order. Just as such sinners sometimes willfully exchange God for idols, they also sometimes willfully exchange opposite gender sexuality for same-sex intercourse.

ConclusionAs confusing as homosexual advocates try to make this issue, Bible-believing Christians had better get used to such verbal sleight-of-hand. And they had better prepare themselves to answer it, because the arguments of "gay" advocates are creeping into virtually every denomination.

Of course, Christians could start by familiarizing themselves with another verse in 1 Corinthians 6. In verse 11 Paul concludes his list of sins -- which includes homosexuality -- with a statement of hope: "And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ed Vitagliano, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is news editor for AFA Journal, a monthly publication of the American Family Association. This article appeared in the January 2004 issue.

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

Another thing, I completely agree with a past article or statment on this forum that emphasized that we should stop excusing adulterers (and other fornicators) in the public/social eye - especially when we don't to open homosexuals. The point? No double standard. We're all sinners, treat everyone the same. We should just be treating EVERYONE charitably.

I have been posting for over a year now and don't recall any posts from active members of this board condoning the "gay lifestyle". On the contrary, there are numerous posts condeming it in threads relating to Robinson and the ECUSA.

And I must agree that the wording of the original post DOES appear to have an underlying meaning attached to it.

What's going on Max?

Tom, if you are not interested in this thread, by all means - skip over it.

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

Even though I probably mostly disagree with Jenn on the Healthcare thread (haven't checked any responses to my recent post yet this morning as I write this), I definitely agree with her opinions regarding this topic and Max.

And what is her opinion regarding this topic? SO far all she has done in this thread is attack me.

Quote

1) However you may act in person, you come across as an uncaring bigot in this forum - at least on this topic. Think before you submit.

If standing for biblical values is being a bigot, then I am guilty as charged.

Quote

2) It doesn't matter if YOU don't think you did anything wrong. What matters is that many of us and especially the Global Mod does. A half-hearted apology is almost no apology.

DO I have to grovel when I apologize? I offered an apology. I cannot force anyone to accept it.

Quote

Again, you didn't spell it out well, so we have no idea what you're really thinking or what your point really is.

To which “it” are you referring?

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

I really have a thing about anyone who does not use clear understandable English. I am sick and tired of those who feel that it is essential to have a dictionary to hand to read and understand any document.

We have to remember that lawyers are good at this - well it keeps up their income .

Here, in the UK , we have what is laughingly called a" clear English campaign" It's nothing of the sort - they can still mix up the meanings of 'may' 'shall', 'ought' and 'must'

Still of course it makes work for lawyers so we should not object.

Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Another thing, I completely agree with a past article or statment on this forum that emphasized that we should stop excusing adulterers (and other fornicators) in the public/social eye - especially when we don't to open homosexuals. The point? No double standard. We're all sinners, treat everyone the same. We should just be treating EVERYONE charitably.

I agree whole heartedly that there is no excuse for adulterers or for those who engage in sex out of wedlock any more than there is an excuse for those who engage in homosexual activity. There is however one major difference, sex between those of the same sex is called an abomination by the scriptures, while adultery is only called a sin.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.’ Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 reads, ‘If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them. ’

It is not CHARITY to walk around preaching the “I’m okay your okay gospel.”

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

I really have a thing about anyone who does not use clear understandable English. I am sick and tired of those who feel that it is essential to have a dictionary to hand to read and understand any document.

We have to remember that lawyers are good at this - well it keeps up their income .

Here, in the UK , we have what is laughingly called a" clear English campaign" It's nothing of the sort - they can still mix up the meanings of 'may' 'shall', 'ought' and 'must'

Still of course it makes work for lawyers so we should not object.

Personally, I think of this forum as a conversation. I'm not writing a treatise, I'm having discussing with someone. This is an INFORMAL medium, I'm not going to belabor grammar or spelling in the posts because to do so is foolish. I'd much rather deal with the SUBSTANCE of the post than deal with the incidentals of the post.

(Let’s also remember that another favorite tactic of lawyers is to attack the way something is said, so as to avoid dealing with WHAT is said)

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

I have been posting for over a year now and don't recall any posts from active members of this board condoning the "gay lifestyle". On the contrary, there are numerous posts condeming it in threads relating to Robinson and the ECUSA.

And I must agree that the wording of the original post DOES appear to have an underlying meaning attached to it.

What's going on Max?

My point exactly. Where are the posts supporting the gay lifestyle? Who here supports the gay lifestyle?

Maybe I'm incorrect about this, but I think he maybe referencing me as the person who supports the 'gay lifestyle'. I mentioned in this thread that my sister is gay and I have chosen to love and accept her regardless of her sexuality. I also maintain that she was born this way and cannot help who she is.

Br. Max, if I am correct that I am indeed the person you are referencing that is in support of "the gay lifestyle" you should of had the guts to call me out. I am highly offended that you would start an entire thread as a passive aggressive slam in my direction.

Maybe I'm incorrect about this, but I think he maybe referencing me as the person who supports the 'gay lifestyle'. I mentioned in this thread that my sister is gay and I have chosen to love and accept her regardless of her sexuality. I also maintain that she was born this way and cannot help who she is.

PhosZoe,

I agree that your post is probably the one BroMax had in mind. I disagree with you, however, that your sister was "born gay" and "cannot help who she is". Not only does this conflict with the real scientific evidence, but it conflicts with the teaching of the Church and the Word of God. I highly recommend reading Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, MD. This book more than adequately debunks the whole "born gay" myth while doing so with compassion.

I think there is some middle ground in between the "born gay" and "always choose to be gay" schools of thought, as in most debates about "nature" vs. "nurture". Anyone who knows more than two gay people on more than an acquaintance level knows that.

I think we all can accept that homosexuality is a disordered sexuality. How does one get that disordered way of looking at sex, though? Are they born that way? Or do they choose to for political reasons? I have no doubt in my mind that my college roommate was born with such a way of looking at things. Could he have fought these inclinations? Perhaps. But until you struggle with something like that, you have no business at all telling people they can just change if they work at it hard enough. When you stop sinning in all respects and achieve complete theosis, maybe you can say that. But until you are without sin, don't even think about looking for a stone to pick up. We can accept that people are born with other mental difficiencies and chemical imbalances, but some just can't accept that some gay folks are born such. Not all, though. Just some.

I've also known gay people who were "made" that way and choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, particularly women. One of my girlfriend's good friends is a lesbian and she will honestly tell you because men have always let her down her entire life. Her father and his father beat her mother as well as her. She was raped when she was 13 and again when she was 15, that time repeatedly. After years of therapy, she met a man who seemed decent, but who apparently engaged in some rather perverse behavior, first on the side, then he tried to bring into their relationship, after they were engaged. He ended up literally leaving her at the altar and all but disappeared, leaving her to pay for the non-wedding.

She swore off men that day. And frankly, from her psychological standpoint, I don't blame her. She never had God in her life to begin with and it must be incredibly difficult for her to even think of God as Father and invite Christ into her life. All I and anyone else can do is prayer that God heals her and that she recognizes that healing comes from God.

The best thing we can do is pray for people. I think way too many Christians forget that and try to railroad and scare and terrorize sinners into repentance, all the while forgetting that we are all sinners, and all sin is an abomination to God. The real abomination is that even the Devil can quote Scripture to satisfy his own purposes.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I think there is far too much emphasis on this issue. Why, for example, are we not up in arms about alcoholism -- a behavior that may be in part "inbred" and in part "learned" -- or other behaviors that are immoral, harmful, etc. ISTM that there is far too much emphasis on this issue as a litmus test issue in our society, when there are other issues that, frankly, are greater social ills than this one. Or so it seems to me, at least.

Oh, I also disagree with some of the comments made about the writing of lawyers. It depends on the skill of the lawyer, of course, but in my own experience the better lawyers are extremely effective writers -- when they obfuscate, they intend to; when they wish to be more clear, they execute that; when they wish to be comprehensive and seemingly verbose, as in contractual drafting, they execute that. The written word is their main playing field and many of them excel at it quite consistently.

Some here are distressed that homosexuality is somehow being singled out above other sins. The fact is that this appears so only because a response is being made to those who repeatedly proffer claims about the origin and "changeability" of homosexuality which contradict the scientific evidence and the teaching of the Church. If, for instance, there was an adultery or an alcoholic lobby in this country that wanted to justify sinful behaviour by passing it off as being biologically determined, responses would be rightfully made to contradict such claims. This doesn't mean we as sinful people are seeing ourselves as somehow better than those who commit different sins than we do. It is to point out, however, one cannot repent of sin if that one is convinced that his particular sinful behaviour is somehow not his fault. After all, how can God hold someone responsible for a behaviour he cannot help but do? I believe THAT, and not homosexuality per se, is the issue.

", for instance, there was an adultery or an alcoholic lobby in this country that wanted to justify sinful behaviour by passing it off as being biologically determined, responses would be rightfully made to contradict such claims."

But isn't that really beside the point? I mean, AA is out there saying alcoholism is a disease and people can't do anything about the fact that they are alcoholic, but that doesn't mean they are justifying one's continuation of one's inherited alcoholism. Can this not also be the case for homosexuality? In other words, I don't see why the crux of this debate has to be whether the behaviour (or rather the tendency to behave in a certain way) is learned or inherited, and by focusing on that its seems to me that the debate about the issue gets lost. Isn't it possible that homosexuality is in part inherited in some way and yet still sinful when acted upon? If the gay people are right that they didn't choose their orientation, why does that mean they automatically win the argument any more than alcoholic wins the argument by saying that he inherited his sinful tendency as well?

But more importantly, I honestly do not see this issue as a major social ill compared to many others. I do no see the gay marriage issue as a major social ill compared to other issues, to be honest, but it's really a social war kind of issue.

I agree whole heartedly that there is no excuse for adulterers or for those who engage in sex out of wedlock any more than there is an excuse for those who engage in homosexual activity. There is however one major difference, sex between those of the same sex is called an abomination by the scriptures, while adultery is only called a sin.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.’ Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 reads, ‘If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them. ’

I don't think your going to find a debate to YOUR satisfaction/beliefs on this board regarding "an abomination" vs just a sin. Sin is sin in our POV. Remember, you're on an Orthodox board. Read what I pasted in below (came from one of our church bullitens a few months ago - it wasn't meant to point the finger at anyone at the time, just an article to read). I think it sums up everything well.

The Homosexual Christian- by Fr. Thomas Hopko

Many gay men and lesbians claim that the Christian faith is the guiding rule of their lives. Some of them hold that their sexual orientation is given by God, that it is good, and that there is nothing wrong or sinful with their homosexual activities. These persons say that the Bible and Church Tradition do not condemn homosexual behaviour, but have been misinterpreted and misused, sometimes unknowingly and other times quite willfully, by prejudiced and hostile people who hate homosexuals. Those who believe in this way obviously want others to agree with them, and many are now working hard to have their views accepted, particularly by fellow Christians and Church leaders.

Other homosexual Christians hold that their sexual orientation is not from God-except providentially, since the Lord’s plan inevitably involves human freedom and sin but derives from human fault. While some of these people are not willing or able to identify the specific reasons for their sexual feelings, though still affirming that they are not good and are not to be indulged; others with the help of what they believe to be sound biblical interpretation and accurate psychological analysis, identify the source of their sexual orientation in faults and failures in their family experiences, particularly in early childhood, and perhaps even before that, which contribute to their sexual makeup. These people hold that they are called by God to struggle against their homosexual tendencies as all people are called to struggle against the sinful passions which they find within themselves, while they work to heal the causes of their disorientation and disease. [Emphasis mine] Those who hold this position look to their fellow Christians, especially their Church leaders, for support and assistance in their spiritual struggle.

The Orthodox Position

Given the traditional Orthodox understanding of the Old and New Testament scriptures as expressed in the Church’s liturgical worship, sacramental rites, canonical regulations and lives and teachings of the saints, it is clear that the Orthodox Church identifies solidly with those Christians, homosexual and heterosexual, who consider homosexual orientation as a disorder and disease, and who therefore consider homosexual actions as sinful and destructive.

According to Orthodox Christian witness over the centuries, Biblical passages such as the following do not permit any other interpretation but that which is obvious.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination . . . (Leviticus 20:13)

For this reason (i.e. their refusal to acknowledge, thank and glorify God) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)

Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral (or fornicators), nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (or sodomites; literally those who have coitus, or who sleep, with men), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Unwilled Sins

According to the Orthodox Church not all sins are willful and voluntary, and not all acts of sin are the conscious fault of those who do them; at least not at first. In a word, sin is not always something for which the sinner himself or herself is necessarily culpable in a complete and conscious way. There are sins of ignorance and passion, sins which "work in our members," as St. Paul says, even against our rational and conscious wills. (See Romans 6-8) These are the sins referred to in the Church’s prayers when the faithful beg God for forgiveness and pardon of sins which are not only conscious, but unconscious; not only voluntary, but involuntary.

There are sins which are involuntary, unwilled, unchosen; sins which overcome people and force them by irrational impulses and compulsions, by weaknesses of the flesh, emotional drives and misguided desires into actions which they themselves do not want, and often despise and abhor - even when they are engaging in them. These are known traditionally as the sins of passion. The fact that these sins are not freely chosen do not make them any less sinful. To sin means to miss the mark, to be off the track, to deviate, to defile, to transgress . . . whether or not the act is consciously willed and purposefully enacted; and whether or not the offender personally is freely and fully at fault.

Redeemed Sinners

According to Orthodox Church Tradition, Christians are redeemed sinners. They are human beings who have been saved from sickness and sin, delivered from the devil and death by God’s grace through faith in Jesus by the Holy Spirit’s power: "and such were some of you." (1 Cor. 6:10) They are baptized into Christ and sealed with the Spirit in order to live God’s life in the Church. They witness to their faith by regular participation in liturgical worship and eucharistic communion, accompanied by continual confession, repentance and the steadfast struggle against every form of sin, voluntary and involuntary, which attempts to destroy their lives in this world and in the age to come.

The homosexual Christian is called to a particularly rigorous battle. His or her struggle is an especially ferocious one. It is not made any easier by the mindless, truly demonic hatred of those who despise and ridicule those who carry this painful and burdensome cross; nor by the mindless, equally demonic affirmation of homosexual activity by its misguided advocates and enablers.

Like all temptations, passions and sins, including those deeply, and oftentimes seemingly indelibly embedded in our nature by our sorrowful inheritance, homosexual orientation can be cured and homosexual actions can cease. With God all things are possible. When homosexual Christians are willing to struggle, and when they receive patient, compassionate and authentically loving assistance from their families and friends - each of whom is struggling with his or her own temptations and sins; for no one is without this struggle in one form or another, and no one is without sin but God-the Lord guarantees victory in ways known to Himself. The victory, however, belongs only to the courageous souls who acknowledge their condition, face their resentments, express their angers, confess their sins, forgive their offenders (who always include their parents and members of their households), and reach out for help with the genuine desire to be healed. Jesus himself promises that the saintly heroes who "persevere to the end" along this "hard way which leads to life" will surely "be saved." (Matt. 7:13; 24:13) " . . . the Lord guarantees victory in ways known to Himself"

Bibliography on Sexuality

Recommended: Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. (Ignore the Amazon reviews. They are not accurate.)

Maybe I'm incorrect about this, but I think he maybe referencing me as the person who supports the 'gay lifestyle'. I mentioned in this thread that my sister is gay and I have chosen to love and accept her regardless of her sexuality. I also maintain that she was born this way and cannot help who she is.

Br. Max, if I am correct that I am indeed the person you are referencing that is in support of "the gay lifestyle" you should of had the guts to call me out. I am highly offended that you would start an entire thread as a passive aggressive slam in my direction.

This is not what Br. Max was talking about. Carry on. Sorry to ruffle feathers.

Maybe I'm incorrect about this, but I think he maybe referencing me as the person who supports the 'gay lifestyle'. I mentioned in this thread that my sister is gay and I have chosen to love and accept her regardless of her sexuality. I also maintain that she was born this way and cannot help who she is.

Br. Max, if I am correct that I am indeed the person you are referencing that is in support of "the gay lifestyle" you should of had the guts to call me out. I am highly offended that you would start an entire thread as a passive aggressive slam in my direction.

If some people are born with an inclination toward homosexuality, so what? The way of Christ is the way of the Cross. Struggle against it! Don't encourage it!

The problem is is that our society does not encourage struggling at all, so outside the Church, one will have very little encouragement to keep up this struggle. Yet another reason to spread the joy of Orthodoxy!

Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers

If some people are born with an inclination toward homosexuality, so what? The way of Christ is the way of the Cross. Struggle against it! Don't encourage it!

The problem is is that our society does not encourage struggling at all, so outside the Church, one will have very little encouragement to keep up this struggle. Yet another reason to spread the joy of Orthodoxy!

true. People today are afraid of struggle and of suffering. Instant pleasure and self gratification.

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

If some people are born with an inclination toward homosexuality, so what? The way of Christ is the way of the Cross. Struggle against it! Don't encourage it!

The problem is is that our society does not encourage struggling at all, so outside the Church, one will have very little encouragement to keep up this struggle. Yet another reason to spread the joy of Orthodoxy!

Well said.

We all have natural inclinations to sin of various kinds.

One of my inclinations is to heterosexual sin. I must overcome it with Christ's help.

Others are inclined to homosexuality. They must overcome that with Christ's help.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas